Does the EU value emissions over human rights?

The European Commission was wrongheaded when, in October, it singled out oil extracted from Canada’s ‘tar sands’ by proposing a higher carbon-emissions value for it than for other sources of fossil fuel.

Given that very little Canadian oil currently makes its way to Europe, labelling it as ‘dirty’ would be largely symbolic. But such a designation would matter: it would muddy the issues that now surround extraction of Canadian oil and inflame trade tensions. It could also, in the longer term, lead to more imports from countries that are not paragons of civil, political and economic rights.

But first, some background that, while not the basis for the Commission’s proposal, has affected the mood music, to the detriment of debate.

For one, the oft-used term ‘tar sands’ is incorrect. Tar originates from distilling coal. Canada’s oil comes from clay sand, through two processes that are cleaner than distilling coal. In the traditional method, oil is extracted through mining that scars the landscape. The oil is then separated from the sand using heat. This approach, however, is in decline and accounts for only 20% of oil extracted from Canada’s oil sands. The rest is ‘steamed’ out of the ground through a process that resembles conventional oil drilling. The impact of oil sands on Canada’s landscape is therefore falling.

The proposed EU action, though, is based on greenhouse-gas emissions. According to a study by IHS-Cambridge Energy Research, oil derived from sand emits as much as Nigerian or Venezuelan crude oil, but 6% more than the average crude oil consumed in the US.

This difference is small and rendered less significant still by a point that the Commission misses: most emissions come not during extraction but during usage. As IHS-Cambridge noted, “70% to 80% of the greenhouse-gas emissions come from the combustion of the fuel in an engine, so the vast majority of emissions remain the same whether the oil comes from west Africa, Latin America or Canada”.

Set against these small, theoretical environmental gains are three very real considerations: demand, security and human rights.

Global demand for oil will rise from 89.2 million barrels per day now to 99 million barrels in 2035, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA also predicts that unconventional oil – such as Canada’s oil sands – will play “an increasingly important role in world oil supply through to 2035, regardless of what governments do to curb demand”.

For Europe, the question then is not whether the world will use more oil, but where it will come from.

Oil’s origin should matter for Europeans who care about their own security and about others’ human rights. Canada, unlike most oil-exporting countries, is politically stable and has a superb human-rights record – unlike, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. But since European industry faces obligations to reduce its carbon footprint, rather than its human-rights footprint, the Commission’s proposal will encourage Europe to focus on the former at the expense of the latter.

Lastly, the Commission’s directive is not worth a trade clash with one of Europe’s best partners.

Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, and his government have hinted quite clearly that Canada may complain to the World Trade Organization if Canadian oil sands are labelled ‘dirty’, arguing that the designation is protectionism under another guise.

Even if the dispute does not deteriorate to that level, an EU directive that discriminates against Canada’s oil would add a complication to talks on a comprehensive EU-Canada free-trade agreement.

Stated bluntly, the EU’s directive would send this unfortunate signal: human-rights issues and progress in open trade matter less than marginal differences in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Mark Milke is a senior fellow at Canada’s Fraser Institute and author of “In America’s national interest: Canadian oil”.

Related stories on these topics:

Hurray for the FQD

What is a respected media outlet like European Voice doing giving space to such blatent pro tar sands propaganda?

Just a couple of clarifications, tar sands have been called tar sands since the 70’s, oil sands came out of a marketing exercise in the 90’s because it sounds better – strictly its called bituminous sands, because it contains poor quality tarry bitumen, not crude oil, which some would like to give the impression of.

The IHS-Cambridge Energy Research refered to here, which was commissioned by the Alberta Government, was not peer reviewed and has been roundly discredited and dismissed. It compares the very worst conventional crude with the best tar sands in terms of emissions and the Commission’s own independent peer reviewed study recommends against its use because of its opaque methodology. There are numerous independent peer reviewed studies out there, a review found the increased intensity of tar sands to be 19-49% greater. The Commission’s proposal to recognise tar sands to emit 23% more GHGs therefore seems fair. And besides if there are tar sands projects which can prove they’re better than that, they can report their actual emissions.

The writer is also twisting IEA scenarios, if we’re to avoid 6 degrees of warming, the IEA states we can only increase tar sands production from the current 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, to 3.3 million. The tar sands industry has announced plans to extract 8 million barrels. This is double even the IEA ‘business as usual’ sceneria, which means 6 degrees.

The line about open cast mining only being 20% and the remaining 80% of tar sands reserves being extracted in-situ via pumping steam into the group is an odd one. I’m not sure why this is presented as a good thing. Apart from having a similar ecological footprint it is far more energy intensive, emiting on average 5 times more GHGs than conventional crude extraction (compared to 3 times for open cast). This means that the carbon intensity of tar sands fuels are set to rocket as more and more in-situ comes on stream.

Finally, measures in the FQD to recognise the higher emissions resulting from tar sands doesn’t breach WTO agreements (doesn’t single out tar sands, doesn’t single out Canada), this is an empty threat from a Canadian Government travelling the world seeking to derail climate change legislation to protect its dirty tar sands industry and desperate to stop the EU sending a clear marker signal that tar sands has no part to play in a low carbon economy and expansion is therefore a risky business.

This article is nothing but propaganda.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 4:30 AM CET

Hurray for the FQD

What is a respected media outlet like European Voice doing giving space to such blatent pro tar sands propaganda?

Just a couple of clarifications, tar sands have been called tar sands since the 70’s, oil sands came out of a marketing exercise in the 90’s because it sounds better – strictly its called bituminous sands, because it contains poor quality tarry bitumen, not crude oil, which some would like to give the impression of.

The IHS-Cambridge Energy Research refered to here, which was commissioned by the Alberta Government, was not peer reviewed and has been roundly discredited and dismissed. It compares the very worst conventional crude with the best tar sands in terms of emissions and the Commission’s own independent peer reviewed study recommends against its use because of its opaque methodology. There are numerous independent peer reviewed studies out there, a review found the increased intensity of tar sands to be 19-49% greater. The Commission’s proposal to recognise tar sands to emit 23% more GHGs therefore seems fair. And besides if there are tar sands projects which can prove they’re better than that, they can report their actual emissions.

The writer is also twisting IEA scenarios, if we’re to avoid 6 degrees of warming, the IEA states we can only increase tar sands production from the current 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, to 3.3 million. The tar sands industry has announced plans to extract 8 million barrels. This is double even the IEA ‘business as usual’ sceneria, which means 6 degrees.

The line about open cast mining only being 20% and the remaining 80% of tar sands reserves being extracted in-situ via pumping steam into the group is an odd one. I’m not sure why this is presented as a good thing. Apart from having a similar ecological footprint it is far more energy intensive, emiting on average 5 times more GHGs than conventional crude extraction (compared to 3 times for open cast). This means that the carbon intensity of tar sands fuels are set to rocket as more and more in-situ comes on stream.

Finally, measures in the FQD to recognise the higher emissions resulting from tar sands doesn’t breach WTO agreements (doesn’t single out tar sands, doesn’t single out Canada), this is an empty threat from a Canadian Government travelling the world seeking to derail climate change legislation to protect its dirty tar sands industry and desperate to stop the EU sending a clear marker signal that tar sands has no part to play in a low carbon economy and expansion is therefore a risky business.

This article is nothing but propaganda.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 4:30 AM CET

Hurray for the FQD

What is a respected media outlet like European Voice doing giving space to such blatent pro tar sands propaganda?

Just a couple of clarifications, tar sands have been called tar sands since the 70’s, oil sands came out of a marketing exercise in the 90’s because it sounds better – strictly its called bituminous sands, because it contains poor quality tarry bitumen, not crude oil, which some would like to give the impression of.

The IHS-Cambridge Energy Research refered to here, which was commissioned by the Alberta Government, was not peer reviewed and has been roundly discredited and dismissed. It compares the very worst conventional crude with the best tar sands in terms of emissions and the Commission’s own independent peer reviewed study recommends against its use because of its opaque methodology. There are numerous independent peer reviewed studies out there, a review found the increased intensity of tar sands to be 19-49% greater. The Commission’s proposal to recognise tar sands to emit 23% more GHGs therefore seems fair. And besides if there are tar sands projects which can prove they’re better than that, they can report their actual emissions.

The writer is also twisting IEA scenarios, if we’re to avoid 6 degrees of warming, the IEA states we can only increase tar sands production from the current 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, to 3.3 million. The tar sands industry has announced plans to extract 8 million barrels. This is double even the IEA ‘business as usual’ sceneria, which means 6 degrees.

The line about open cast mining only being 20% and the remaining 80% of tar sands reserves being extracted in-situ via pumping steam into the group is an odd one. I’m not sure why this is presented as a good thing. Apart from having a similar ecological footprint it is far more energy intensive, emiting on average 5 times more GHGs than conventional crude extraction (compared to 3 times for open cast). This means that the carbon intensity of tar sands fuels are set to rocket as more and more in-situ comes on stream.

Finally, measures in the FQD to recognise the higher emissions resulting from tar sands doesn’t breach WTO agreements (doesn’t single out tar sands, doesn’t single out Canada), this is an empty threat from a Canadian Government travelling the world seeking to derail climate change legislation to protect its dirty tar sands industry and desperate to stop the EU sending a clear marker signal that tar sands has no part to play in a low carbon economy and expansion is therefore a risky business.

This article is nothing but propaganda.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 4:30 AM CET

Hurray for the FQD

What is a respected media outlet like European Voice doing giving space to such blatent pro tar sands propaganda?

Just a couple of clarifications, tar sands have been called tar sands since the 70’s, oil sands came out of a marketing exercise in the 90’s because it sounds better – strictly its called bituminous sands, because it contains poor quality tarry bitumen, not crude oil, which some would like to give the impression of.

The IHS-Cambridge Energy Research refered to here, which was commissioned by the Alberta Government, was not peer reviewed and has been roundly discredited and dismissed. It compares the very worst conventional crude with the best tar sands in terms of emissions and the Commission’s own independent peer reviewed study recommends against its use because of its opaque methodology. There are numerous independent peer reviewed studies out there, a review found the increased intensity of tar sands to be 19-49% greater. The Commission’s proposal to recognise tar sands to emit 23% more GHGs therefore seems fair. And besides if there are tar sands projects which can prove they’re better than that, they can report their actual emissions.

The writer is also twisting IEA scenarios, if we’re to avoid 6 degrees of warming, the IEA states we can only increase tar sands production from the current 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, to 3.3 million. The tar sands industry has announced plans to extract 8 million barrels. This is double even the IEA ‘business as usual’ sceneria, which means 6 degrees.

The line about open cast mining only being 20% and the remaining 80% of tar sands reserves being extracted in-situ via pumping steam into the group is an odd one. I’m not sure why this is presented as a good thing. Apart from having a similar ecological footprint it is far more energy intensive, emiting on average 5 times more GHGs than conventional crude extraction (compared to 3 times for open cast). This means that the carbon intensity of tar sands fuels are set to rocket as more and more in-situ comes on stream.

Finally, measures in the FQD to recognise the higher emissions resulting from tar sands doesn’t breach WTO agreements (doesn’t single out tar sands, doesn’t single out Canada), this is an empty threat from a Canadian Government travelling the world seeking to derail climate change legislation to protect its dirty tar sands industry and desperate to stop the EU sending a clear marker signal that tar sands has no part to play in a low carbon economy and expansion is therefore a risky business.

This article is nothing but propaganda.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 4:30 AM CET

prairie dog

The information and the language is also correct, if you find keeping yourself ignorant makes you feel better then by all means stay in your happy place. Progress will continue with educating the dim, such as yourself….carry on.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 10:36 AM CET

prairie dog

The information and the language is also correct, if you find keeping yourself ignorant makes you feel better then by all means stay in your happy place. Progress will continue with educating the dim, such as yourself….carry on.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 10:36 AM CET

prairie dog

The information and the language is also correct, if you find keeping yourself ignorant makes you feel better then by all means stay in your happy place. Progress will continue with educating the dim, such as yourself….carry on.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 10:36 AM CET

prairie dog

The information and the language is also correct, if you find keeping yourself ignorant makes you feel better then by all means stay in your happy place. Progress will continue with educating the dim, such as yourself….carry on.

Posted on 11/17/11 | 10:36 AM CET

Jesse Whitnack

@LastComment..
you seem to have a lot of information about a foreign countries emissions.. would you care to prove any of your allegations?
I grew up and currently live in Edmonton AB. I have heard it called “Tar-Sands, Oil-Sands, The Tar Pit” among various other references, but it was Never their formal name. Tar itself is derived from distilling coal, a process much more GHG intensive than the Oil-Sands ever will emit. It pretty much went like this, people I’ve met who didn’t like the idea of the Oil-Sands, called it Tar-Sands. and vice versa. just because the names been around for years, does not mean that was the original intention with the term.
as for disproving the IHS Study, can you prove such allegations?
Most of the destruction that the majority of people are against, is the current way its being dug up. with in-situ technologies they can drill in all directions without having to build continuous oil rigs like that of conventional oil rigs using Much Less energy to extract. the GHG emissions will be Much lower than they are currently, This technology was for the most part, developed here, by them. I would like you to refer me to someone else who perfected the technology and has gathered their own GHG emissions data on it.
My Government is not seeking to derail climate change legislation, real scientists and climatologists are doing that. My Government is merely telling people to wake up.
CO2 accounts for 0.04% of global gases.
NASA released studies debunking the greenhouse gas theory.
Historical CO2 figures are vastly different during every ice-age and global meltdown.

Now on the other hand, Environmentalists have claimed that the planet can only properly sustain 5million people. what sounds like the best idea to you, buy a gun + 7.95billion bullets? or economically destroy the very thing keeping this amount of population alive on this planet?
Environmentalists around the world have been accused (even some charged) with violence towards working class citizens for doing the job that feeds them, a few with accusations of purposely blowing up pipelines to “raise awareness”.. the list goes on, and it will not stop there.
I am not against protesting improper laws and governance, but I will never resort to activism and (for lack of a better term) terrorism. unlike most “Environmentalists” out there.
I would also like to point out, the “Environmentalists” movement, along with the “Green” industry is now a billion dollar world wide corporation. would you care to explain how that happened? and why they wouldn’t fight to keep their opinions feared and respected?

Posted on 11/19/11 | 8:32 AM CET

Jesse Whitnack

@LastComment..
you seem to have a lot of information about a foreign countries emissions.. would you care to prove any of your allegations?
I grew up and currently live in Edmonton AB. I have heard it called “Tar-Sands, Oil-Sands, The Tar Pit” among various other references, but it was Never their formal name. Tar itself is derived from distilling coal, a process much more GHG intensive than the Oil-Sands ever will emit. It pretty much went like this, people I’ve met who didn’t like the idea of the Oil-Sands, called it Tar-Sands. and vice versa. just because the names been around for years, does not mean that was the original intention with the term.
as for disproving the IHS Study, can you prove such allegations?
Most of the destruction that the majority of people are against, is the current way its being dug up. with in-situ technologies they can drill in all directions without having to build continuous oil rigs like that of conventional oil rigs using Much Less energy to extract. the GHG emissions will be Much lower than they are currently, This technology was for the most part, developed here, by them. I would like you to refer me to someone else who perfected the technology and has gathered their own GHG emissions data on it.
My Government is not seeking to derail climate change legislation, real scientists and climatologists are doing that. My Government is merely telling people to wake up.
CO2 accounts for 0.04% of global gases.
NASA released studies debunking the greenhouse gas theory.
Historical CO2 figures are vastly different during every ice-age and global meltdown.

Now on the other hand, Environmentalists have claimed that the planet can only properly sustain 5million people. what sounds like the best idea to you, buy a gun + 7.95billion bullets? or economically destroy the very thing keeping this amount of population alive on this planet?
Environmentalists around the world have been accused (even some charged) with violence towards working class citizens for doing the job that feeds them, a few with accusations of purposely blowing up pipelines to “raise awareness”.. the list goes on, and it will not stop there.
I am not against protesting improper laws and governance, but I will never resort to activism and (for lack of a better term) terrorism. unlike most “Environmentalists” out there.
I would also like to point out, the “Environmentalists” movement, along with the “Green” industry is now a billion dollar world wide corporation. would you care to explain how that happened? and why they wouldn’t fight to keep their opinions feared and respected?

Posted on 11/19/11 | 8:32 AM CET

Jesse Whitnack

@LastComment..
you seem to have a lot of information about a foreign countries emissions.. would you care to prove any of your allegations?
I grew up and currently live in Edmonton AB. I have heard it called “Tar-Sands, Oil-Sands, The Tar Pit” among various other references, but it was Never their formal name. Tar itself is derived from distilling coal, a process much more GHG intensive than the Oil-Sands ever will emit. It pretty much went like this, people I’ve met who didn’t like the idea of the Oil-Sands, called it Tar-Sands. and vice versa. just because the names been around for years, does not mean that was the original intention with the term.
as for disproving the IHS Study, can you prove such allegations?
Most of the destruction that the majority of people are against, is the current way its being dug up. with in-situ technologies they can drill in all directions without having to build continuous oil rigs like that of conventional oil rigs using Much Less energy to extract. the GHG emissions will be Much lower than they are currently, This technology was for the most part, developed here, by them. I would like you to refer me to someone else who perfected the technology and has gathered their own GHG emissions data on it.
My Government is not seeking to derail climate change legislation, real scientists and climatologists are doing that. My Government is merely telling people to wake up.
CO2 accounts for 0.04% of global gases.
NASA released studies debunking the greenhouse gas theory.
Historical CO2 figures are vastly different during every ice-age and global meltdown.

Now on the other hand, Environmentalists have claimed that the planet can only properly sustain 5million people. what sounds like the best idea to you, buy a gun + 7.95billion bullets? or economically destroy the very thing keeping this amount of population alive on this planet?
Environmentalists around the world have been accused (even some charged) with violence towards working class citizens for doing the job that feeds them, a few with accusations of purposely blowing up pipelines to “raise awareness”.. the list goes on, and it will not stop there.
I am not against protesting improper laws and governance, but I will never resort to activism and (for lack of a better term) terrorism. unlike most “Environmentalists” out there.
I would also like to point out, the “Environmentalists” movement, along with the “Green” industry is now a billion dollar world wide corporation. would you care to explain how that happened? and why they wouldn’t fight to keep their opinions feared and respected?

Posted on 11/19/11 | 8:32 AM CET

Jesse Whitnack

@LastComment..
you seem to have a lot of information about a foreign countries emissions.. would you care to prove any of your allegations?
I grew up and currently live in Edmonton AB. I have heard it called “Tar-Sands, Oil-Sands, The Tar Pit” among various other references, but it was Never their formal name. Tar itself is derived from distilling coal, a process much more GHG intensive than the Oil-Sands ever will emit. It pretty much went like this, people I’ve met who didn’t like the idea of the Oil-Sands, called it Tar-Sands. and vice versa. just because the names been around for years, does not mean that was the original intention with the term.
as for disproving the IHS Study, can you prove such allegations?
Most of the destruction that the majority of people are against, is the current way its being dug up. with in-situ technologies they can drill in all directions without having to build continuous oil rigs like that of conventional oil rigs using Much Less energy to extract. the GHG emissions will be Much lower than they are currently, This technology was for the most part, developed here, by them. I would like you to refer me to someone else who perfected the technology and has gathered their own GHG emissions data on it.
My Government is not seeking to derail climate change legislation, real scientists and climatologists are doing that. My Government is merely telling people to wake up.
CO2 accounts for 0.04% of global gases.
NASA released studies debunking the greenhouse gas theory.
Historical CO2 figures are vastly different during every ice-age and global meltdown.

Now on the other hand, Environmentalists have claimed that the planet can only properly sustain 5million people. what sounds like the best idea to you, buy a gun + 7.95billion bullets? or economically destroy the very thing keeping this amount of population alive on this planet?
Environmentalists around the world have been accused (even some charged) with violence towards working class citizens for doing the job that feeds them, a few with accusations of purposely blowing up pipelines to “raise awareness”.. the list goes on, and it will not stop there.
I am not against protesting improper laws and governance, but I will never resort to activism and (for lack of a better term) terrorism. unlike most “Environmentalists” out there.
I would also like to point out, the “Environmentalists” movement, along with the “Green” industry is now a billion dollar world wide corporation. would you care to explain how that happened? and why they wouldn’t fight to keep their opinions feared and respected?